Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Responsibilities of the Member States under the Dublin II Regulation from a fundamental rights perspective

Starke, Malin LU (2013) JURM02 20131
Department of Law
Abstract
This essay examines the responsibilities of the Member States in the European Union under the Dublin II Regulation from a fundamental rights perspective. The examination focuses in particular on two main obligations of the Member States – the obligation to assess other Member States’ compliance with fundamental rights and the obligation for all Member States to respect fundamental rights in the Union.

Member States have previously been permitted to presume that all Member States of the Union are safe countries for third-country nationals. However, reality shows that grave deficits might exist in the responsible Member State’s asylum- and reception system. Both the ECtHR and the CJEU have acknowledged in the cases of M.S.S. and N.S.... (More)
This essay examines the responsibilities of the Member States in the European Union under the Dublin II Regulation from a fundamental rights perspective. The examination focuses in particular on two main obligations of the Member States – the obligation to assess other Member States’ compliance with fundamental rights and the obligation for all Member States to respect fundamental rights in the Union.

Member States have previously been permitted to presume that all Member States of the Union are safe countries for third-country nationals. However, reality shows that grave deficits might exist in the responsible Member State’s asylum- and reception system. Both the ECtHR and the CJEU have acknowledged in the cases of M.S.S. and N.S. respectively that the use of a conclusive presumption therefore could expose asylum seekers to treatment contrary to fundamental rights in transfer situations. At present, the lack of subsequent judgement from the CJEU nevertheless limits the transferring Member State’s obligation to assess the responsible Member State’s compliance with fundamental rights to the duty of assessing the compliance with the prohibition of torture and inhuman treatment according to Article 4 in the Charter.

It is currently difficult to establish how fundamental rights in the Charter specifically relevant for asylum seeker impact the responsibilities of the Member States under the Dublin II Regulation. The question whether Member States’ actions fall within the scope of the Charter appears to be an imminent issue. The absence of preliminary rulings from the CJEU on the interpretation of the scope and meaning of the rights is noticeable. This primarily applies to rights without corresponding provisions in the ECHR. Since the status of the case law from the ECtHR seems to be in dispute, the scope and meaning of corresponding rights may thus not be established for certain without further guidance from the CJEU. Notwithstanding the responsibilities of the Member States with regard to the two main obligations today, there is reason to expect that the future accession of the Union to the ECHR will enhance Member States’ responsibilities in general. (Less)
Abstract (Swedish)
I denna uppsats undersöks hur grundläggande rättigheter inom EU påverkar medlemsstaternas ansvar vid tillämpning av Dublinförordningen. Uppsatsen inriktas på två huvudsakliga skyldigheter hos medlemsstaterna – skyldigheten att bedöma andra medlemsstaters skydd av grundläggande rättigheter och skyldigheten för alla medlemsstater att respektera de grundläggande rättigheterna inom unionen.

Medlemsstaterna har tidigare, mot bakgrund av syftet med Dublinförordningen, tillåtits att presumera att alla medlemsstater inom EU är säkra för tredjelandsmedborgare vid tillämpningen av reglerna i förordningen. Verkligheten har dock visat att det kan finnas allvarliga brister i medlemsstaters asyl- och mottagningssystem. Både Europadomstolen och... (More)
I denna uppsats undersöks hur grundläggande rättigheter inom EU påverkar medlemsstaternas ansvar vid tillämpning av Dublinförordningen. Uppsatsen inriktas på två huvudsakliga skyldigheter hos medlemsstaterna – skyldigheten att bedöma andra medlemsstaters skydd av grundläggande rättigheter och skyldigheten för alla medlemsstater att respektera de grundläggande rättigheterna inom unionen.

Medlemsstaterna har tidigare, mot bakgrund av syftet med Dublinförordningen, tillåtits att presumera att alla medlemsstater inom EU är säkra för tredjelandsmedborgare vid tillämpningen av reglerna i förordningen. Verkligheten har dock visat att det kan finnas allvarliga brister i medlemsstaters asyl- och mottagningssystem. Både Europadomstolen och EU-domstolen har i M.S.S. respektive N.S.-målet uppmärksammat att en sådan icke motbevisbar presumption därför riskerar att utsätta asylsökande för brott mot grundläggande rättigheter vid överföring till den ansvariga medlemsstaten. Avsaknaden av ytterligare avgöranden från EU-domstolen gör dock att skyldigheten för överförande medlemsstater att kontrollera huruvida den ansvariga medlemsstaten upprätthåller skyddet för grundläggande rättigheter enligt EU-rätten än så länge är begränsad till att undersöka upprätthållandet av förbudet mot tortyr och omänsklig behandling enligt Artikel 4 i EU-stadgan.

Det är i nuläget svårt att urskilja hur grundläggande rättigheter i EU-stadgan som särskilt berör asylsökande påverkar medlemsstaters ansvar vid tillämpning av Dublinförordningen. Frågan om medlemsstaternas handlingar faller inom ramen för EU-stadgans tillämpningsområde framstår som ett övergripande problem. Bristen på förhandsavgöranden från EU-domstolen om hur innebörden och räckvidden av rättigheterna ska tolkas är anmärkningsvärd. Detta gäller i första hand de rättigheter i EU-stadgan som inte anses korrespondera till rättigheter i Europakonventionen om mänskliga rättigheter. Eftersom det råder osäkerhet i frågan om praxis från Europadomstolen är bindande, kan dessutom innebörden och räckvidden av korresponderande rättigheter inte med säkerhet fastställas utan en mer omfattande vägledning från EU-domstolen. Oavsett hur ansvaret för medlemsstaterna i nuläget ser ut enligt de två huvudsakliga skyldigheterna finns det anledning att anta att medlemsstaternas ansvar generellt kan komma att öka i och med EU:s framtida anslutning till Europakonventionen om mänskliga rättigheter. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Starke, Malin LU
supervisor
organization
course
JURM02 20131
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
EU law
language
English
id
3803198
date added to LUP
2013-06-14 12:48:13
date last changed
2013-06-14 12:48:13
@misc{3803198,
  abstract     = {This essay examines the responsibilities of the Member States in the European Union under the Dublin II Regulation from a fundamental rights perspective. The examination focuses in particular on two main obligations of the Member States – the obligation to assess other Member States’ compliance with fundamental rights and the obligation for all Member States to respect fundamental rights in the Union.

Member States have previously been permitted to presume that all Member States of the Union are safe countries for third-country nationals. However, reality shows that grave deficits might exist in the responsible Member State’s asylum- and reception system. Both the ECtHR and the CJEU have acknowledged in the cases of M.S.S. and N.S. respectively that the use of a conclusive presumption therefore could expose asylum seekers to treatment contrary to fundamental rights in transfer situations. At present, the lack of subsequent judgement from the CJEU nevertheless limits the transferring Member State’s obligation to assess the responsible Member State’s compliance with fundamental rights to the duty of assessing the compliance with the prohibition of torture and inhuman treatment according to Article 4 in the Charter.

It is currently difficult to establish how fundamental rights in the Charter specifically relevant for asylum seeker impact the responsibilities of the Member States under the Dublin II Regulation. The question whether Member States’ actions fall within the scope of the Charter appears to be an imminent issue. The absence of preliminary rulings from the CJEU on the interpretation of the scope and meaning of the rights is noticeable. This primarily applies to rights without corresponding provisions in the ECHR. Since the status of the case law from the ECtHR seems to be in dispute, the scope and meaning of corresponding rights may thus not be established for certain without further guidance from the CJEU. Notwithstanding the responsibilities of the Member States with regard to the two main obligations today, there is reason to expect that the future accession of the Union to the ECHR will enhance Member States’ responsibilities in general.},
  author       = {Starke, Malin},
  keyword      = {EU law},
  language     = {eng},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Responsibilities of the Member States under the Dublin II Regulation from a fundamental rights perspective},
  year         = {2013},
}